Graham vs Richlands

[Bigrhsfan 884]

Congrats to the Gmen on a good win for them,  good luck the rest of the season............unless we meet again in the playoffs.

[Burrall’s Pearls 61]

3 hours ago, Ryan4VT said:

Props to Graham. Their D is legit. They took away Steele and we were too scared to throw against their speed. Good luck the rest of the season. 

Tried to tell you they’d name the score. Only team beating Graham is themselves. 

[Real Sasquatch 1,865]

2 minutes ago, Bulldog05 said:

They hurt Webb? That’s not good if so. 

No. "Took him out of the game" meaning  He was just a non factor 

[Bulldog05 69]

Just now, Real Sasquatch said:

No. "Took him out of the game" meaning  He was just a non factor 

Okay good. He’s a good ball player don’t wanna see anyone get hurt. 

[Gridiron60 2,555]

https://www.heraldcourier.com/sports/prep-football-graham-blasts-richlands/article_cd441b1a-f7ad-11e9-b050-6396453ceac7.html

 

[bgibb 207]

https://www.facebook.com/1509224081/posts/10220378418559761?sfns=mo

 

[Bluefield researcher 1,195]

Effective with the 2014 high school season, new Rule 2-43 will read as follows: “Targeting is an act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.”

[Hokie101 153]

4 hours ago, bgibb said:

https://www.facebook.com/1509224081/posts/10220378418559761?sfns=mo

 

Just a non biased point of view here but that doesn’t look dirty to me.  From what I read last night I was expecting something much different.  You have to take in effect that plays at full speed look worse than on replays.  What I see is the Graham kid actually slow up and turn his body it looked like.  He didn’t launch or leave his feet.  Football is a violent sport with violent collisions sometimes.  Think of all the helmet to helmet contacts in college but after they review it they overturn the targeting.  Unfortunately in high school, they can’t overturn anything.  Most importantly here though, is a kid was hurt and you never want to see that so I hope he is ok and recovers quickly.

[Union_Fan 2,155]

5 hours ago, bgibb said:

https://www.facebook.com/1509224081/posts/10220378418559761?sfns=mo

 

If you slo mo the video. Lester comes in, lowers his head,  leads with his helmet and initiates helmet to helmet contact.

From the angle of this video it looks like the textbook definition of targeting. Just what I can tell from the video provided. 

[Real Sasquatch 1,865]

Its also a 15 yard penalty in high school but not an ejection.

[Gridiron60 2,555]

3 hours ago, Bluefield researcher said:

Effective with the 2014 high school season, new Rule 2-43 will read as follows: “Targeting is an act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.”

Is the penalty loss of yardage or and an ejection in high school? 

[Deleted Account 5,203]

49 minutes ago, Hokie101 said:

Just a non biased point of view here but that doesn’t look dirty to me.  From what I read last night I was expecting something much different.  You have to take in effect that plays at full speed look worse than on replays.  What I see is the Graham kid actually slow up and turn his body it looked like.  He didn’t launch or leave his feet.  Football is a violent sport with violent collisions sometimes.  Think of all the helmet to helmet contacts in college but after they review it they overturn the targeting.  Unfortunately in high school, they can’t overturn anything.  Most importantly here though, is a kid was hurt and you never want to see that so I hope he is ok and recovers quickly.

I’ve watched this thing like the Zapruder film, and that is what I’m seeing.  He initially does lower his head, but two frames before contact pulls it back up and connects shoulder-to-shoulder.  Much more difficult to see real-time, but did not warrant an ejection by rule or by intent.

[chipinbogey 150]

9 minutes ago, Gridiron60 said:

Is the penalty loss of yardage or and an ejection in high school? 

Only a 15 yard penalty unless deemed to be flagrant. I'm not saying whether it is or isn't flagrant but, it is contact initiated to the head and neck area by the defender. The camera angle is sketchy at best. To the covering official's defense, as someone said before, in real time with two great athletes, you get about a .3 second view at it. The umpire seems to have a view of it too. We're conditioned to err on the side of caution with these fouls in the name of player safety. I'd imagine (or hope) that there was a conversation between the crew about whether or not it was flagrant. 

 

Unrelated side note: I remember why I gave up Facebook years ago. That comment section is littered with absolute disinformation. That's all I have to say about that(in Forrest Gump's voice).

[Mountain Football 1,532]

I hate he got ejected. In my honest opinion Lester getting ejected hurt Richlands just as bad as it did Graham. May sound dumb but the Graham kids responded very well. They really got fired up and played like a team. 

[Gridiron60 2,555]

6 minutes ago, Mountain Football said:

I hate he got ejected. In my honest opinion Lester getting ejected hurt Richlands just as bad as it did Graham. May sound dumb but the Graham kids responded very well. They really got fired up and played like a team. 

I agree! It got the boys fired up and the fans. In the end, it hurt Richlands way more than Graham. I just think in my lowly opinion ejection wasn’t warranted. When you have opposing coaches saying after the game it was a good hit then an ejection was the wrong call. 

[Mountain Football 1,532]

6 minutes ago, Gridiron60 said:

I agree! It got the boys fired up and the fans. In the end, it hurt Richlands way more than Graham. I just think in my lowly opinion ejection wasn’t warranted. When you have opposing coaches saying after the game it was a good hit then an ejection was the wrong call. 

That was the 2nd hit of the game that Lester had that he was coming in hot on. Lol. If you watch the Richlands sideline they were making their case for the ejection while the officials had their discussion. I can't say that I wouldn't have been doing the same thing if I was in there shoes😂

Booker had his best game last night of the season period. He made some very good blocks and ran the ball really well. 

[Gridiron60 2,555]

3 minutes ago, Mountain Football said:

That was the 2nd hit of the game that Lester had that he was coming in hot on. Lol. If you watch the Richlands sideline they were making their case for the ejection while the officials had their discussion. I can't say that I wouldn't have been doing the same thing if I was in there shoes😂

Booker had his best game last night of the season period. He made some very good blocks and ran the ball really well. 

Booker and ole Snake were both playing their former team, that puts a fire under you even without a bad ejection call. Booker played great! 

[Gridiron60 2,555]

1 hour ago, UVAObserver said:

I’ve watched this thing like the Zapruder film, and that is what I’m seeing.  He initially does lower his head, but two frames before contact pulls it back up and connects shoulder-to-shoulder.  Much more difficult to see real-time, but did not warrant an ejection by rule or by intent.

Zapruder film 😂😂😂😂 I'm out of reactions for the day. 

[Tiger 2000 73]

I am definitely biased toward Richlands.  So here you go.
 The hit was close enough/ high enough  to where a ref is gonna flag it.  Football is a tough sport and it was a division 1 athlete coming in hard like he was supposed to.  I don’t think he deserved to be ejected.  At all.   I do think that he now knows , that he definitely could have got low and ran through him.  He made the hit like everyone did up untill a few years ago. The rules have changed now and we still see some hard hits like the one he delivered . He is a good player. Hated to see him go.   It was definitely a 15 yard penalty by definition. But probably tossed him unnecessarily.  

[Real Sasquatch 1,865]

7 minutes ago, Tiger 2000 said:

I am definitely biased toward Richlands.  So here you go.
 The hit was close enough/ high enough  to where a ref is gonna flag it.  Football is a tough sport and it was a division 1 athlete coming in hard like he was supposed to.  I don’t think he deserved to be ejected.  At all.   I do think that he now knows , that he definitely could have got low and ran through him.  He made the hit like everyone did up untill a few years ago. The rules have changed now and we still see some hard hits like the one he delivered . He is a good player. Hated to see him go.   It was definitely a 15 yard penalty by definition. But probably tossed him unnecessarily.  

At first I thought it was a clean hit but after reading the rule, I see it was called correctly and I agree that it did not warrant an ejection.  We are all human.

[Hokie1Pokie 350]

10 minutes ago, Real Sasquatch said:

At first I thought it was a clean hit but after reading the rule, I see it was called correctly and I agree that it did not warrant an ejection.  We are all human.

Said it when it happened. Personal Foul, clearly a hit that was to high, but no ejection warranted. The officials got one half of the situation right. We have to remember the officials have two decisions, not one.

Was it high contact, head to head, at least a personal Foul, etc?

Does the above warrant and ejection?

Like I said, they got one half of it correct.

[SWVAgridiron 1,469]

When hearing about this I was under the impression that the Richlands player was hit from behind in the back of the helmet but after seeing the vid that was not the case. I pull for the Blues every game they play so I’m usually a little biased towards them but I don’t think that hit deserved an ejection. A personal foul yes, but not an ejection.

[Bigrhsfan 884]

I am of course a Richlands fan and played back in the 70's and have been hit similar and made similar type of hits,  and we would have been praised for that back then,  but now with the new rules you get flagged and tossed for those type of hits. I understand why and I think you need those rules to protect the kids,  but in my opinion, like several have stated already, he should have been flagged and gave a 15 yard personal foul and maybe even warned by the refs to not make another high hit again or he will be tossed,  but he should not have been tossed that time. I understand the refs doing so because it happens so fast and the hit was high and looks violent and they want to error on the side of safety,  but the kids only have so many games to play in and you hate to see one taken,  but the refs have to make a call without the benefit of a replay.

  I understand why they did what they did,  but just think it should have been a 15 yard personal foul and the kid stays in the game.

[VHSLhelper 571]

it's possible he had been warned before... maybe even before last night. It's not like Richlands goes out and hires WV refs when Graham comes to town.

[Hokie1Pokie 350]

11 minutes ago, VHSLhelper said:

it's possible he had been warned before... maybe even before last night. It's not like Richlands goes out and hires WV refs when Graham comes to town.

Shifting the goal posts a bit? After you called me a liar after simply pointing out that Ron Brown said he did not think it was intentional on the air, you blew a gasket and lost your cool a little bit. Probably out of anger at the beat down that was occuring. Anyway, whether or not Richlands "hires officials," has no relevance to whether it was a good call or bad one. Because Richlands does Not hire officials, lol, does not mean the kid should have been ejected. It was a horrible call to eject him. A 50/50 call that could go either way on the field and likely the right call for sure for a personal Foul, but to eject him in that moment? A horrific call by the officials that let EMOTION, emotion of the game and Richlands coaches cloud objectivity. 

The officials last night often let the emotion of the game cloud judgement. We can certainly say this if you disagree with the above......Graham certainly didn't benefit from calls.